medigraphic.com
ISSN 1561-302X (Impreso)

2019, Número 4

<< Anterior Siguiente >>

Rev cubana med 2019; 58 (4)


Herramientas evaluadoras de calidad de la investigación de las medicinas no convencionales

Reyes-Mandujano IF, Yactayo-Flores AM, Ramos CE, Hurtado RR, Yongabi AK

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 39
Paginas: 1-19
Archivo PDF: 516.94 Kb.


RESUMEN

Introducción: El uso de las medicinas no convencionales (MNC) crece en la población; sin embargo, los médicos tienen un bajo nivel de conocimiento acerca de ellas, a pesar de su interés, debido a las preguntas que reciben de sus pacientes con respecto a sus riesgos y beneficios. No obstante, se desconoce cuántos y cuáles son los instrumentos que evalúan la calidad de la investigación de estas medicinas.
Objetivo: Identificar las herramientas que se utilizan para evaluar la calidad de la investigación en medicinas no convencionales a fin de conocer sus avances y origen de sus limitaciones.
Método: Se realizó una búsqueda de información en bases de datos científicas; acopiándose un total de 200 de estos, solo 75 fueron considerados adecuados; aunque, solo 12 respondieron a la pregunta de investigación. El análisis acogió algunas de las recomendaciones PRISMA.
Resultados: Se encontraron 12 instrumentos que guían y evalúan la calidad de la investigación en medicinas no convencionales, 9 de ellas son extensiones CONSORT. China, Corea del Sur y la India son los países que promueven la estandarización de su medicina tradicional, la cual representa gran parte de las medicinas alternativas y complementarias de otras partes del mundo.
Conclusiones: Se requiere seguir procedimientos específicos para la evaluación de la calidad de la investigación en medicinas no convencionales con el fin de encontrar los criterios más apropiados para la evaluación de su eficacia y seguridad.


REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

  1. Kats D. La integración de la medicina convencional y no convencional. Humanit Huamnidades Médicas. 2003;1(2):171-80. 2 World Health Organization. General guidelines for methodologies on research and evaluation of traditional medicine World Health Organization. WHO/EDM/TR. Geneva; 2000. 74 p.

  2. Organización Mundial de la Salud. Estrategia de la OMS Sobre Medicina Tradicional 2014-2023. Hong Kong SAR, China; 2013. 1-72 p.

  3. Latour Pérez J, Rodríguez Lescure Á. Lectura crítica de la literatura biomédica (II): cómo valorar la calidad de la evidencia y establecer recomendaciones. Rev Senol y Patol Mamar 2015;28(2):79-84.

  4. Medeiros PM, Ladio AH, Albuquerque UP. Sampling problems in Brazilian research: a critical evaluation of studies on medicinal plants. Rev Bras Farmacogn. 2014;24(2):103-9.

  5. Chen J, Huang J, Li JV, Lv Y, He Y, Zheng Q. The characteristics of TCM clinical trials: A systematic review of ClinicalTrials.gov. Evidence-based Complement Altern Med. 2017;2017:1-9.

  6. Mårtensson P, Fors U, Wallin SB, Zander U, Nilsson GH. Evaluating research: A multidisciplinary approach to assessing research practice and quality. Res Policy. 2016;45(3):593-603.

  7. Jian Ping L, Ke Ji C. Methodology guideline for clinical studies investigating traditional Chinese medicine and integrative medicine. Complement Ther Med. 2015;23(5):751-6.

  8. World Health Organization. Guidelines for clinical study of traditional medicines in the WHO african region. 2004. 74 p.

  9. Gagnier JJ, Boon H, Rochon P, Moher D, Barnes J, Fls M, et al. Reporting randomized, controlled trials of herbal interventions: an elaborated CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(5):364-7.

  10. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Government of India. Good clinical practice guidelines for Clinical Trails in Aryuveda, Siddha and Unani Medicine (GPC-ASU). New Delhi; 2013. 1-114 p.

  11. Chung Wah C, Shu Fei F, Qing Hui Z, Tai Xiang W, Hong Cai S, Xu Dong T, et al. Extending the CONSORT Statement to moxibustion. J Integr Med. 2014;11(1):54-63.

  12. Macpherson H, Altman DG, Hammerschlag R, Youping L, Taixiang W, White A, et al. Revised Standards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA ): Extending the CONSORT statement. 2016;3(2015):35-46.

  13. Wang X, Chen Y, Liu Y, Yao L, Estill J, Bian Z, et al. Reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of acupuncture: The PRISMA for acupuncture checklist. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2019;19(1):1-10.

  14. Chung Wah C, Tai Xiang W, Hong ai S, You Ping L, Altman DG. CONSORT extension for Chinese herbal medicine formulas 2017: Recommendations, explanation, and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167(2):112-21.

  15. Li J, Hu J yuan, Zhai J bo, Niu J qiang, Kwong JSW, Ge L, et al. CONSORT extension for reporting N-of-1 trials for traditional Chinese medicine (CENT for TCM): Recommendations, explanation and elaboration. Complement Ther Med. 2019;46(July):180- 8.

  16. Zhang X, Tian R, Lam WC, Duan Y, Liu F, Zhao C, et al. Standards for reporting interventions in clinical trials of cupping (STRICTOC): Extending the CONSORT statement. Chinese Med (United Kingdom). 2020;15(1):1-15.

  17. Munk N, Boulanger K. Adaptation of the CARE guidelines for therapeutic massage and bodywork publications: Efforts to improve the impact of case reports. Int J Ther Massage Bodyw Res Educ Pract. 2014;7(3):32-40.

  18. Ioannidis JPA, Evans SJW, Gøtzsche PC, O’Neill RT, Altman DG, Schulz K, et al. Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: An extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(10):781-8.

  19. Schulz K, Altman D, Moher D. Consolidated standards for reporting trials of traditional Chinese medicine (CONSORT for TCM) (for solicitation of comments). BMC Med. 2010;8(18):64.

  20. Gagnier JJ, Kienle G, Altman DG, Moher D, Sox H, Riley D. The CARE guidelines: Consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development. Forsch Komplementarmed. 2013;20(5):385–6.

  21. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group TP. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses : The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7). doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

  22. Patel SJ, Kemper KJ, Kitzmiller JP. Physician perspectives on education, training, and implementation of complementary and alternative medicine. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2017;8:499-503. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S138572

  23. Bahall M, Legall G. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices among health care providers regarding complementary and alternative medicine in Trinidad and Tobago. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2017;17(1):1-9.

  24. Pokladnikova J, Selke-Krulichova I. The Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine by the General Population in the Czech Republic: A Follow-Up Study. Complement Med Res. 2018;25(3):159-66.

  25. Raposo VL. Complementary and alternative medicine, medical liability and the proper standard of care. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2019;35(December 2018):183-8.

  26. World Health Organization. WHO global report on traditional and complementary medicine 2019. Geneva; 2019. 228 p.

  27. Ng JY, Liang L, Gagliardi AR. The quantity and quality of complementary and alternative medicine clinical practice guidelines on herbal medicines, acupuncture and spinal manipulation: Systematic review and assessment using AGREE II. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2016;16(1):1-10.

  28. Yao L, Chen Y, Wang X, Shi X, Wang Y, Guo T, et al. Appraising the quality of clinical practice guidelines in traditional Chinese medicine using AGREE II instrument: A systematic review. Int J Clin Pract. 2017;71(5):1-8.

  29. Sha Y, Dang W, Yao long C, Qi W, Xiao qin W, Zhao Z, et al. Quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines for integrative medicine in China: A systematic review. Chin J Integr Med. 2017;23(5):381-5.

  30. Wang J, Guo Y, Li GL. Current Status of Standardization of Traditional Chinese Medicine in China. Evidence-based Complement Altern Med. 2016;2016:1-8.

  31. Jonas WB, Chez RA. Is the complementary and alternative medicine intervention evidence-based?. A users’ guide to the medical literature. Prim Care Update Ob Gyns. 2001;8(5):178-85.

  32. World Health Organization. Second consultation meeting on traditional and modern medicine: harmonizing the two approaches. Gyongiu-Republic of Korea; 2003.

  33. Álvarez Cáceres R. Ensayos clínicos: diseño, análisis e interpretación. Madrid- España: Diaz- Santos, S.A.; 2005. 197 p.

  34. World Health Organization. Research guidelines for evaluating the safety and efficacy of herbal medicines. 1993. 8 p.

  35. Macpherson H, Altman DG, Hammerschlag R, Youping L, Taixiang W. Revised STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture ( STRICTA ): Extending the CONSORT Statement. PLoS Med. 2010;7(6):1-11.

  36. Rosella L, Bowman C, Pach B, Morgan S, Fitzpatrick T, Goel V. The development and validation of a meta-tool for quality appraisal of public health evidence: Meta Quality Appraisal Tool (MetaQAT). Public Health. 2015;1-9.

  37. Leonidaki V. Critical appraisal in the context of integrations of Qualitative Evidence in Applied Psychology: the introduction of a new appraisal tool for interview studies. Qual Res Psychol. 2015 Oct 2;12(4):435-52.

  38. Bannerman RH. Organization and cooperation for the development of studies on plants used in traditional medicine: some guidelines for research and studies. J Ethnopharmacol. 1980;2:189-92.

  39. World Health Organization. WHO guidelines on safety monitoring of herbal medicines in pharmacovigilance systems. Geneva. 2004. 82 p.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com